With its 4th generation Core "Haswell" processors, Intel is putting in a serious effort to improve integrated graphics (IGP) performance to catch up with AMD's Radeon HD 8600 series on its latest APUs. There are three classes of Intel IGPs for Haswell, the GT1, which features 10 execution units (EUs), and will feature on entry-thru-mainstream Pentium, Core i3, and Core i5 chips; GT2, which features 20 EUs, featuring on mainstream-thru-performance Core i5 and Core i7 chips; and GT3, a large 40-EU IGP, which uses an L4 eDRAM cache. Chips with GT3 graphics are multi-chip modules (MCMs) of the CPU die and this eDRAM due, as detailed earlier. It was earlier believed that Haswell chips with GT3 graphics cores will be confined to notebook and Ultrabook-specific CPU models, but it turns out that it will make an appearance on the desktop platform as well.

Intel is carving out three further variants based on the GT3 IGP silicon, probably based on clock speeds. The top variant is named Intel Iris Pro 5200, the next one Intel Iris 5100, and the last Intel HD 5000. GT2-based IGPs follow an Intel HD 4600/4400/4200 nomenclature. Desktop processors with GT3 graphics will get the -R brand extension, for example, Core i7-4770R. These chips will probably lack unlocked base-clock multipliers of the -K chips, could feature different CPU clock speeds, and interestingly, feature lower overall chip TDP than the -K chips. The i7-4770R, for example, is rated at just 65W, compared to the 84W of the i7-4770K. Merely being on the desktop platform doesn't mean the chips will be "DIY" or based on the LGA1150, we won't be surprised if the chip comes in BGA packages, which are soldered to motherboards.

Leave it to Intel marketing... never anything new and creative. "HD" was such a horrible moniker trying to cash in on the "HD" craze, and now they replace it with "Iris" to cash in on the "Retina" craze.

Leave it to Intel marketing... never anything new and creative. "HD" was such a horrible moniker trying to cash in on the "HD" craze, and now they replace it with "Iris" to cash in on the "Retina" craze.

Last time I checked, the name doesn't impact the power consumption or performance of the hardware with said name. I wouldn't mind having a BGA option for something that I would most likely use as a HTPC or workstation anyways.

If you're going to be overclocking there is a good bet you want good graphics performance too and an iGPU will never give you the kind of performance a dedicated card will. They're not designed to target the same market. I wouldn't need to overclock an HTPC or workstation for example but I might want half decent graphics performance without using too much power.

....hhhmmm if intel gets graphics right... and their mainstreams chips are actually not over priced when considering the performance they give..... were going to have to find something else to rag on them about...

Well if they are using eDRAM to make up for the performance gap common with shared memory setups then Intel may finally get some discrete level performance. Although, AMD could do the same thing and totally blow them out of the water. Rumors have it the 720 will be using that setup to make up for the performance loss with the DDR3 RAM.

Figured it would take Intel 3-4 gens to catch up but AMD has plenty of Radeon cores they can throw in it. The PS4 shows that they aren't limited to midrange GPUs for APUs. Course that is Jaguar cores not Piledriver. But really even if they did stay with midrange. When the performance gap with shared VRAM is taken away those APUs will be looking even better.

Eventually Intel will need competitive GPU designs which they have the money to invest in. Will be interesting to see where the market goes. I don't think it'll do away with GPUs, but it'll certainly do something for raising the low end. Unfortunately bring about more appliance computers. Oh the horror Apple is going to bring about on the PC world and the massive load of e-waste it will eventually create.

It works perfectly fine on my MacBook Air for work. Not everyone needs a ton of GPU power which doesn't mean it's poor, it means that it is adequate for the needs of most people and most people don't use computers to play games, at least games that require graphics more than a HD 4000. If you do, you're using the wrong hardware for your needs.

What is this!?! Intel's response to the AMD APU's? Why? AMD uses a graphics design based on there graphics division which means good driver support vs Intel's. Well that is in games which Intel's drivers are notoriously bad for (there getting better), but if Intel is trying to match the power of the GPU inside the APU's for such applications its pointless. There IGP in thier CPU's are for HTPC use, like blue ray, not gaming, and they do such already wonderfully. Anyone got some other office or "work" related activity that needs a good IGP as such?

LOL, notice how the 3DMark Vantage and 11 tests are from GRAPHICS score, not TOTAL/FINAL scores, in which It'd never be over 2x or 3x the performance of HD4000 at any rate... Only the 3DMark 06 one is to be taken straightforward as a real world-ish result.

Either way, what's the difference between workstation P4700 and P4600? Also, is HD 5000 w/ 40 EUs? Then if so, what's the difference between it and HD 5100?

Hmmm... looking at the LV chart... I'd say Kabini, especially the 25W version, has a very big chance of outpacing Intel's 28W chip without a sweat.